Uber's Tiers

[JaronK]

Yeah, what he said. Its not okay to actively lie about someone, but it is very okay to mangle their words totally and utterly to mean something directly contrary to what they actually flat out said.

Dude, I quoted you when I called you on that bigotry.  And it was plain as day.  Need it brought up again?  You said, with no context before it in the thread about race at all, that while you didn't believe there was a master race, if there was one it would be the germanic peoples.  Then you made multiple posts defending that position, citing how they're the dominant world people, and that therefor, if there was a master race (with the disclaimer that you didn't believe there was one), it would be them.  Again, in a thread where no one was talking about master races and racism at all (it was about graduated taxation!).  Just, off the top of your head, a thesis about how if there was a master race, it was the germanic peoples, with the disclaimer that you didn't think there was one.  And then complained that I was unfair in accusing you of being a bigot.

That's rather different than someone saying that I thought Factotums could turn into Solars via Shapechange when in fact I stated they could cast Alter Self to turn into a bug with high AC, a flight speed, and a solid number of natural attacks.

More to the point...does whether or not a bard can contribute to mass combat, which is not a standard part of the game, really justify whether or not it should be a higher tier by the tier system Uber is using?

A first level unoptimized character (such as a Bard 1 with any race or feats, using any long range instrument) being able to turn the tide of massive battles counts as a decent amount of power to me.  Heck, first level Wizards have a tough time pulling something like that, though Silent Image can certainly be useful.

JaronK

[JaronK]

Look, I know you're generally full of it (you've certainly never dealt with large scale combat in D&D, and it shows), but please don't actively lie about me, okay?

Huh?[/quote]

Can you really not see it?  The guy came on and claimed, among other things, that a few level 3 to 5 archers can take out (or at least heavily damage) an army of level 1s, that a reasonable army he's thinking of is a group of fiendish centipedes, and that he didn't believe large scale combat happened (because casters would make it useless).  Clearly, he's never done it, otherwise he'd not claim it couldn't happen, right?  And come on, most of his examples were downright insane.  Fiendish centipedes?  Level 3 melees forcing entire armies of level 1s to run, when we've already mentioned the bardic support that makes it so the level 3s die in one hit anyway?  Those are not statements made by someone who's ever tried it before.  Thus, he's clearly not tried it before.  That's not an Ad Hominem.  That's telling someone who's admitted, straight up, that he doesn't believe a thing exists at all, that they don't know about the thing they don't think exists, especially after hearing a lot of examples that clearly demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about.

And once again, I actually ran that army.  I was a Whispergnome Spelltheif, in fact, who was leading the scouting parties during the main battle, and who was primarily in charge of assassinating enemy high level characters.  It was a heck of a lot of fun.  But the point that's relevant to this thread is that the level 1 Bards were by far the dominant force on the battlefield, mostly by making every shot a 1 hit kill from our side (on all but the toughest of enemies) while the Crusaders soaked hits.

JaronK

[Ubernoob]

Can you really not see it?  The guy came on and claimed, among other things, that a few level 3 to 5 archers can take out (or at least heavily damage) an army of level 1s, that a reasonable army he's thinking of is a group of fiendish centipedes, and that he didn't believe large scale combat happened (because casters would make it useless).  Clearly, he's never done it, otherwise he'd not claim it couldn't happen, right?  And come on, most of his examples were downright insane.  Fiendish centipedes?  Level 3 melees forcing entire armies of level 1s to run, when we've already mentioned the bardic support that makes it so the level 3s die in one hit anyway?  Those are not statements made by someone who's ever tried it before.  Thus, he's clearly not tried it before.  That's not an Ad Hominem.  That's telling someone who's admitted, straight up, that he doesn't believe a thing exists at all, that they don't know about the thing they don't think exists, especially after hearing a lot of examples that clearly demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about.

And once again, I actually ran that army.  I was a Whispergnome Spelltheif, in fact, who was leading the scouting parties during the main battle, and who was primarily in charge of assassinating enemy high level characters.  It was a heck of a lot of fun.  But the point that's relevant to this thread is that the level 1 Bards were by far the dominant force on the battlefield, mostly by making every shot a 1 hit kill from our side (on all but the toughest of enemies) while the Crusaders soaked hits.

JaronK

First off, 1HD creatures ALWAYS die in one hit.  The bards had nothing to do with that.

Second off, PC classes are reserved for PCs.  Any time you get someone that there are thousands of similar people then you start using NPC classes.  PCs are by the nature of the game rare.  Using crusaders in armies as anything other than a small number of PCs shows a fundamental failure to understand the difference in PCs and NPCs.  Don't even get me started on having 7 3HD PC classed creatures.

[Elennsar]

And saying "if there was such a thing" after saying "I don't believe that the Danes are superior" "but"...

You either A) didn't understand and aren't interested understanding, or B) intentionally mangled that to be insulting.

Taking something out of context and totally missing anything that would relate to anything are is either deceitful or stupid. I'm not sure which is the case here.

The statement was not an act of bigotry, much as you'd like to make it into one by failing to read the entire sentence, and just taking the "master race" and "Germanic" and using any explaination of what I meant by that as proving your utterly invalid point.

When someone mentions that some people/s have made something work, and I stated that I don't think that one of those people/s are superior despite any feelings that if there was a superior group that they could be it, therefore its not something that "only they" can do...seriously, do you regularly call people Nazis because they say that they think the Germans accomplished more than the Hungarians? Or Russians? Or Aztecs?

So, it is apparently okay by you to mangle what someone says to the point it means something opposite of the actual statement, but flat out dishonesty (There's a difference? Good question, but anyway.) is not okay.

Right. Hypocrite. Deliberately deceitful-and-unconcerned-with-what-someone-meant hypocrite.

As for the PC classes: Agreed with ubernoob here. One might be able to make the arguement that the Legions of Rome at their best were Fighters, or Sparta's hoplites, or something similarly considerably-better-than-average. But it would still be on shaky ground.

[Kaelik]

What the hell are you talking about?  Nor did I ever say anything about Shapechange, or switching forms round by round with Alter Self.  In fact, I mostly used actual examples of how I've seen Factotums in play, and they were level 4 and level 8... nowhere near Shapechange levels.

Well offhand, I'm probably talking about this from the first page:

who just cast Shapechange and gained 20th level Cleric casting (Solar) and then switches to get 17th level Wizard casting (Black Ethergaunt), or Genesis to get his own free Flowing Time plane where time moves 10,000 times faster?

Which is looking back at it is about a Sorcerer, and I just confused it with the rest of your post, the factotum sexing and talking about Factotums being just as good casters as Wizards. Sorry, I get confused about bullshit that I hate and other bullshit that I hate. It all blends together 6 pages later.

Look, I know you're generally full of it (you've certainly never dealt with large scale combat in D&D, and it shows), but please don't actively lie about me, okay?

So in other words, you ignore all my actual analysis of mass combat, ignore that part that your supposed bullshit "army" made entirely of elite soldiers who have never gained a level is actually supposed to be as good as an Astral Deva that actually completely annihilates it. And then talk shit about how I don't know what I'm talking about even though you have no evidence for any of your baseless assertions about supposed mass combat.

Seriously, present any "mass army" you want with everyone under level 5. Then compute it's CR. Then I will kill it with a level 11 Wizard/Cleric/Druid, even though the base army you presented had a EL of 11, I'll kill 400 times that number no problem though.

You really should stop pretending you know better then everyone. I never claimed to fight an entire army on army battle using D&D rules, mostly because I haven't.

I have on the other hand used a single level 13 character to wipe out several hundred armies in his career. That's because I like my D&D games to involve lots off piss ant level 1-5s that suffer under the same delusion you do that they actually matter in any way to someone over level 10. Mass slaughter is entertaining.

Presentation is the greatest aspect here.

Really, cause that's not at all the impression I got from reading over the terms of the board 3 days ago. In fact, I gathered that content is more important then presentation, and judging by what I've seen from Meg on the subject, that goes double for g-fu. Of course I'm not under any illusion that explicitly stating that under board policy will ever discourage the "Being nice and wrong is better then mean and right" crowd.

A large part of the community here is from the old 339 boards, so that is what I was reference with the five years indicator. I happen to think visiting one discussion board every day for five years is special, this may be something that separates us.

I happen to think that it's not really all that special. Not that that stopped me from doing it, but that's just because I like D&D.

I don't think I am better then you, I think I am more connected to this community. And with the critique, I believe highly in the presentation of one's ideas and thoughts. I disagreed with how you had presented yours through out this incident (the attack on JaronK's sig for example). So I'm sorry if I offended you at all but I'm not sorry for what I have said.

1) I think you are more connected to the community as well. Just as I am more connected to several other communities. But if you went over and posted something in the gaming den, I would judge it based on it's merits, not how connected to the community you were. But that's just me.

2) I didn't attack his sig. There is this thing beneath a line, that's his actual sig, Granted he doesn't put anything there, but that's still his actual sig. The thing I "attacked" was just his name typed at the end of every post like he's writing a goddam letter or something. If he were to put his name in his signature, I would ignore it just like everyone else's.

3) I am not sorry for anything I have said (except for my above confusion about JaronK's Shapechange post). I am also not sorry if I have offended anyone, because honestly, lots of people like to get offended about things that don't actually matter and make a big deal about it, and being sorry doesn't actually do anyone any good.

Hell I'm offended that JaronK doesn't have the balls to just tell me I'm wrong when he disagrees with me instead of making allusions to my lack of experience with the subject, although, perversely, he has no problem calling me a liar.

I tell people they are wrong every day, it's generally accepted because of the way I present it. Pure, savage, brutal truth should always be a last option during a discussion.

I think you have your option meter upside down. It starts with pure savage brutal truth. You can tell people they are wrong all nicely every day, but at the end of the day, they'll still be wrong.

[Kaelik]

Can you really not see it?  The guy came on and claimed, among other things, that a few level 3 to 5 archers can take out (or at least heavily damage) an army of level 1s, that a reasonable army he's thinking of is a group of fiendish centipedes, and that he didn't believe large scale combat happened (because casters would make it useless).  Clearly, he's never done it, otherwise he'd not claim it couldn't happen, right?  And come on, most of his examples were downright insane.  Fiendish centipedes?  Level 3 melees forcing entire armies of level 1s to run, when we've already mentioned the bardic support that makes it so the level 3s die in one hit anyway?  Those are not statements made by someone who's ever tried it before.  Thus, he's clearly not tried it before.  That's not an Ad Hominem.  That's telling someone who's admitted, straight up, that he doesn't believe a thing exists at all, that they don't know about the thing they don't think exists, especially after hearing a lot of examples that clearly demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about.

So did you think that my claim that a single high level caster could easily annihilate the army in question was based on imaginary pretend land, numbers, or experience? Because two of those are irrefutable, and the other one is never used by anyone.

Although, I do like how you actually ignore all the real issues like an army of crusaders instead of real characters, or my point that those level 3-5 archers where part of another army in favor of the argument that because I have never sat down and rolled a 100 crusaders and 5 bards versus 105 crusaders battle that I am not qualified to have an opinion on how badly both those armies would be eradicated by a single level 11 Wizard.

[dark_samuari]

2.) This arguments stem from the vagueness of issues. We've discussed things that are not in any way related to DnD and more related to real life "stuff."

I realized I wasn't clear and just edited.  I sort of know you from the boards and that means I'm prone to idle chatter.  As for getting advice, I've gotten that from Meg and Sinister.  Nobody else here has shown enough social finesse to really make me want to get advice about them.

I'll agree that we have had idle chatter on subjects of college and women related.

3.) JaronK has demonstrated his importance to the community through is helpful actions to questions and needed advice on the boards for a long time.

Frankly, a lot of JaronK's advice is either bad or just not suited to anything outside of TO.

JaronK does what I will refer to as "grunt work" in that if there is a basic question, he answers it to the best of his capabilities and attempts to offer more. Most of the "regulars" do this, especially in the days when 339 would be swarmed with new players asking questions we'd seen a hundred times. Its the effort he puts in, added with the dedication to try to push the new player into a greater understanding that makes JaronK a fantastic person to give out advice. 

Presentation is the greatest aspect here.

Actually, Meg explicitly allows us to be more blunt here than at 339.  Fuck, she mentioned the gaming den as a model a while back.  Placing presentation over substance leads to the Paizo effect, which is bullshit.

I tell people they are wrong every day, it's generally accepted because of the way I present it. Pure, savage, brutal truth should always be a last option during a discussion.

Why?  Really.  It's the quickest way to cut out the chaff.  If you dance around the issue it takes triple the posts to get the point.

"You're wrong. Here's why...."
"I can understand where you're coming from but I have to disagree with you because of...."

Both of these say the same thing but one of them says it a lot smoother and presents it a cleaner. It's essentially the basic art of diplomacy.

[JaronK]

First off, 1HD creatures ALWAYS die in one hit.  The bards had nothing to do with that.

No, they don't, when attacked by 1HD creatures.  Seriously, do your first level characters always die to the first attack?  Come on man, you should know better.  Sometimes that longsword rolls low.

Furthermore, as you quoted, I said "when we've already mentioned the bardic support that makes it so the level 3s die in one hit anyway?"  That's the 3HD creatures dying in one hit.  In fact, since the bards were adding +2 regular damage, +1d6 fire, +1d6 cold, +1d6 acid, and +1d6 electricity, the average damage from a shot was increased by 16, enough to easily TKO the 3 HD guys.  20 becomes the average number.  So, instead of one hit maybe killing a 1HD creature, now 1 hit always kills a 1HD creature, and 3HD creatures go down just as fast most of the time.  So yes, it was the bards doing that.  Come on man, you even bolded the relevant part.

Second off, PC classes are reserved for PCs.

Seriously, you've been missing the mark on the rules constantly.  Please review the DMG, in the section on NPC bards, clerics, and in fact every other PC class.  PC classes are NOT reserved for PCs.  It's NPC classes that are reserved for NPCS (generally), while PC classes can be PCs or NPCs.  What do you think that whole section on NPCs with PC class levels is about?  Furthermore, you may not have noticed this, but in the change from 3.0 to 3.5, Leadership now gives you PC classed NPCs as your followers.  And finally, check the demographics section, where you'll find it talks about the number of PC classes in any given town.

  Any time you get someone that there are thousands of similar people then you start using NPC classes.    PCs are by the nature of the game rare.  Using crusaders in armies as anything other than a small number of PCs shows a fundamental failure to understand the difference in PCs and NPCs.  Don't even get me started on having 7 3HD PC classed creatures.

Maybe that's what you do.  But see Leadership, above.  That does in fact give you PC classed followers.  So what makes you think PC classes have to be rare?  Maybe in your campaign that's the case, but as per page 139 of the DMG, there's plenty of PC classes running around.  Sure, most people are NPCs, but PC classes are definitely out in force.  Your statement that PC classes are reserved for PCs is clearly false.  Assuming there's as many Crusaders as Clerics (which is the closest approximation I could figure, and is also the most conservative reasonable choice... if we assume they're like Fighters, it's much more) then the Average large town has 1 Level 6 Crusader, 2 level 3 Crusaders, 4 Level 2 Crusaders, and 8 Level 1 Crusaders available (roughly speaking of course, it's actually 1 Level 6.5 Crusader).  Metropolises have far more, if those are in your games... the average metropolis would have 1 Level 18 Crusader, 1 Level 16 Crusader, 1 Level 15 Crusader, 1 Level 13 Crusader, 2 Level 9 Crusaders, 2 Level 8 Crusaders 2 Level 7 Crusaders, 2 Level 6 Crusaders, 8 Level 4 Crusaders, 8 Level 3 Crusaders, 16 Level 2 Crusaders, and 48 Level 1 Crusaders.

So the idea of managing, with a Diplomancer in the group, to pick up 120 level 1 Crusaders is pretty reasonable.   That's how many we had in our army at least.  We also had a decent number of Fighters and a few Marshals, Bards, and Binders.  

Point being, you keep assuming all games are just like yours.  That's the only fundamental lack of understanding here.  You keep saying my logic only applies in TO games, but personally I think the logic that Fighters are bad at pretending to be something they're not and that a player can, in time, recruit a decent number of Crusaders by RAW is pretty darn standard to the rules of the game.  Your ideas, such as that PC classes are reserved for PCs and power only matters in combat, seem very specific to your one style of play, which seems to be all kick in the door style combat with out of combat ignoring the rules completely in favor of diceless roleplaying while a bunch of spells are nerfed.  That's fine for your games I'm sure, but please don't assume your house rules apply to everyone, or that everyone plays with your special demographics.  I know I'd hate to be stuck in a game where a skillmonkey (which tends to be the kind of character I like to play, though these days it's usually Beguilers) doesn't get to shine because his skills are all ignored anyway and the Fighter can bluff merrily along without issues.

And Kaelik:  The army was fighting other armies, not optimized PCs, but it was supported by a group of PCs.  In the end, the PCs took out the rival high level NPCs while the armies clashed.  And yes, it's hard to take out a whole army.  Archery becomes a serious threat when there's so much of it, especially when Dispel Magics are being launched to counter enemy defenses.  Yes, even level 1s are a threat when that many shots are going downrange.

I do like, however, that you call Shapechanging into a Solar bull, but turn around and claim your Wizard's move is to turn into an Astral Deva.  Hypocrite, just a bit?

JaronK

[JaronK]

Why?  Really.  It's the quickest way to cut out the chaff.  If you dance around the issue it takes triple the posts to get the point.

"You're wrong. Here's why...."
"I can understand where you're coming from but I have to disagree with you because of...."

Both of these say the same thing but one of them says it a lot smoother and presents it a cleaner. It's essentially the basic art of diplomacy.
[/quote]

Thank you for your support, by the way, but I think you misquoted there.  IIRC Ubernoob said the bit about chaff and dancing.  I certainly didn't.  I tend to like to take the time to explain a point of view!

JaronK

[dark_samuari]

Presentation is the greatest aspect here.

Really, cause that's not at all the impression I got from reading over the terms of the board 3 days ago. In fact, I gathered that content is more important then presentation, and judging by what I've seen from Meg on the subject, that goes double for g-fu. Of course I'm not under any illusion that explicitly stating that under board policy will ever discourage the "Being nice and wrong is better then mean and right" crowd.

So is then impossible to the "Nice and Right" crowd? Because all it takes is being diplomatic.

I don't think I am better then you, I think I am more connected to this community. And with the critique, I believe highly in the presentation of one's ideas and thoughts. I disagreed with how you had presented yours through out this incident (the attack on JaronK's sig for example). So I'm sorry if I offended you at all but I'm not sorry for what I have said.

2) I didn't attack his sig. There is this thing beneath a line, that's his actual sig, Granted he doesn't put anything there, but that's still his actual sig. The thing I "attacked" was just his name typed at the end of every post like he's writing a goddam letter or something. If he were to put his name in his signature, I would ignore it just like everyone else's.

You nitpicked something that nobody has a problem with and then blew it up. Can you cite a reason why this bothers you rather then "it's stupid". It's a quirk, everyone has them...

I tell people they are wrong every day, it's generally accepted because of the way I present it. Pure, savage, brutal truth should always be a last option during a discussion.

I think you have your option meter upside down. It starts with pure savage brutal truth. You can tell people they are wrong all nicely every day, but at the end of the day, they'll still be wrong.

Funny thing about your option is that after the first time you use your pure, savage, brutal truth is it works. I'm not going to deny that it doesn't. But next time you desire to inform someone they are incorrect on something they will avoid you. You've shown a history of offensivly telling them they are wrong. They'll be defensive, they'll view you in a different light. And they will not see you as a better person for it (no matter how much you may be convinced you are) because you spoke to them harshly, without any compassion. You have not forged a connection, you have in fact damaged any there may have been.

[dark_samuari]

Sorry JaronK, misquoted and fumbled up while constructing the post. My bad.

[Operation Shoestring]

And you're still a fucking druid.  Give a druid 16 wis at start, take nothing but druid levels and you are guaranteed to be able to contribute better than a PW or bard.  Toss on natural spell if you want to rub it in.

I call bullshit.  I'm currently running a newbie games with fairly optimized characters (I urged the players to read some online handbooks, and all but the Swordsage took it to heart), and the Bard is easily the strongest contributor to the game, while the Druid is tying the Swordsage for least useful, mostly because Wildshape takes an action and the player wants to spellcast instead -largely a wasted effort because the Dread Necro has the spare actions to cast Black Tentacles and thus is better at BC.  The Paladin is technically weaker in combat but has been diplomancing the heck out of anything that talks.  The biggest contribution the Druid has made thus far is a Stoneshape to break through a Wall of Stone an enemy Sorcerer threw up, which is nifty but not amazing.  By contrast, the Dread Necro has been locking down enemies with BT and pounding them with his pet skeletons while the Bard is buffing well and sniping the odd enemy with Charm Monster (Excellent synergy between them).  Even the swordsage got his moment of glory when he used searing charge to mid-air a dragon, but the Druid is rolling blanks.

[JaronK]

Sorry JaronK, misquoted and fumbled up while constructing the post. My bad.

It looked like that was what happened, but I thought I'd say something.

And by the way, the signing thing at the end of my posts is a very old habit from a very long time ago, but I happen to like it, so I see no need to stop now.  Not that you were the one objecting, but I thought I'd mention it.

@Shoestring:  The first Druid I saw was exactly like that.  I don't think she used Wild Shape once, and most ran around using that spell that makes a fireball that you control run around the battlefield.  The Druid class is powerful, and one of the easiest to optimize, but some people just don't have a knack for it and thus play it quite poorly.  That's why I tend to assume (at least when I'm ranking classes by power) that players know their classes and what's available to them, whether or not they chose to optimize... if I included all players, including the ones that have no idea what's going on, then all classes are equal (and do very very little).  So yeah, I've definitely seen even the mighty Druid look weak in comparison to, of all things, a Fighter/Cleric (which was mine!).

JaronK

[Ubernoob]

JaronK does what I will refer to as "grunt work" in that if there is a basic question, he answers it to the best of his capabilities and attempts to offer more. Most of the "regulars" do this, especially in the days when 339 would be swarmed with new players asking questions we'd seen a hundred times. Its the effort he puts in, added with the dedication to try to push the new player into a greater understanding that makes JaronK a fantastic person to give out advice. 

We have handbooks out the ass.  People like Carnivore and JaronK reposting the same poor or useless information do nothing except allow people to be lazy and ignorant of alternative options.  That hurts  the community.  It is one thing to build something from scratch.  That adds information to the system.  It's quite another to repost useless data in part when it would be better for the person to be fully informed and do research themself.

Fundamentally 339 would have been a better place if Carnivore's paste function was deleted and JaronK was restricted to the TO forum.   Quantity does not mean one contributes in a positive way.  Carnivore advocated fundamentally bad options.  JaronK advocated fundamentally TO options.  People like this need to be restricted from information communities because they don't add to them.

Presentation is the greatest aspect here.

Actually, Meg explicitly allows us to be more blunt here than at 339.  Fuck, she mentioned the gaming den as a model a while back.  Placing presentation over substance leads to the Paizo effect, which is bullshit.

I tell people they are wrong every day, it's generally accepted because of the way I present it. Pure, savage, brutal truth should always be a last option during a discussion.

Why?  Really.  It's the quickest way to cut out the chaff.  If you dance around the issue it takes triple the posts to get the point.

"You're wrong. Here's why...."
"I can understand where you're coming from but I have to disagree with you because of...."

Both of these say the same thing but one of them says it a lot smoother and presents it a cleaner. It's essentially the basic art of diplomacy.

This is the internet.  What happens if someone gets a softball answer?  They assume the person saying it is unsure of themselves and jump to the more confident post.  If you do not give a confident answer you are simply wasting space.  When it comes to information (social issues are another thing and generally diplomacy has no place on message boards because that should be taken to IM) beating around the bush is nothing but a waste of time.

First off, 1HD creatures ALWAYS die in one hit.  The bards had nothing to do with that.

No, they don't, when attacked by 1HD creatures.  Seriously, do your first level characters always die to the first attack?  Come on man, you should know better.  Sometimes that longsword rolls low.

1d8+stat damage
level 1 warrior hp: 1d8+stat

Yes, 1HD creatures always die in one hit.  If you're not an idiot and actually use a two handed weapon then you deal a minimum of:
1d8+stat*1.5
Yeah, level one sucks.  Get over it.

Furthermore, as you quoted, I said "when we've already mentioned the bardic support that makes it so the level 3s die in one hit anyway?"  That's the 3HD creatures dying in one hit.  In fact, since the bards were adding +2 regular damage, +1d6 fire, +1d6 cold, +1d6 acid, and +1d6 electricity, the average damage from a shot was increased by 16, enough to easily TKO the 3 HD guys.  20 becomes the average number.  So, instead of one hit maybe killing a 1HD creature, now 1 hit always kills a 1HD creature, and 3HD creatures go down just as fast most of the time.  So yes, it was the bards doing that.  Come on man, you even bolded the relevant part.

3HD creature:
3d8+3*stat
Two 1HD creatures using greatswords and flanking (also CR 3)
4d6+3*stat

So the CR rules state one EL 3 can destroy another EL 3 in one round.

D&D is rocket tag for melee at low levels.  Get the fuck over it.

Second off, PC classes are reserved for PCs.

Seriously, you've been missing the mark on the rules constantly.  Please review the DMG, in the section on NPC bards, clerics, and in fact every other PC class.  PC classes are NOT reserved for PCs.  It's NPC classes that are reserved for NPCS (generally), while PC classes can be PCs or NPCs.  What do you think that whole section on NPCs with PC class levels is about?  Furthermore, you may not have noticed this, but in the change from 3.0 to 3.5, Leadership now gives you PC classed NPCs as your followers.  And finally, check the demographics section, where you'll find it talks about the number of PC classes in any given town.

And what purpose do NPC classes serve besides unnamed legions?

PC classes are reserved to guys that get names and stories.  NPC classes are explicitly for legions and similar things where the individual is copy/pasted a thousand times.

  Any time you get someone that there are thousands of similar people then you start using NPC classes.    PCs are by the nature of the game rare.  Using crusaders in armies as anything other than a small number of PCs shows a fundamental failure to understand the difference in PCs and NPCs.  Don't even get me started on having 7 3HD PC classed creatures.

Maybe that's what you do.  But see Leadership, above.  That does in fact give you PC classed followers.  So what makes you think PC classes have to be rare?  Maybe in your campaign that's the case, but as per page 139 of the DMG, there's plenty of PC classes running around.  Sure, most people are NPCs, but PC classes are definitely out in force.  Your statement that PC classes are reserved for PCs is clearly false.  Assuming there's as many Crusaders as Clerics (which is the closest approximation I could figure, and is also the most conservative reasonable choice... if we assume they're like Fighters, it's much more) then the Average large town has 1 Level 6 Crusader, 2 level 3 Crusaders, 4 Level 2 Crusaders, and 8 Level 1 Crusaders available (roughly speaking of course, it's actually 1 Level 6.5 Crusader).  Metropolises have far more, if those are in your games... the average metropolis would have 1 Level 18 Crusader, 1 Level 16 Crusader, 1 Level 15 Crusader, 1 Level 13 Crusader, 2 Level 9 Crusaders, 2 Level 8 Crusaders 2 Level 7 Crusaders, 2 Level 6 Crusaders, 8 Level 4 Crusaders, 8 Level 3 Crusaders, 16 Level 2 Crusaders, and 48 Level 1 Crusaders.

Leadership is TO bullshit.  You should be shot for every trying to use it as a way to represent the world or use it for game balance.

So the idea of managing, with a Diplomancer in the group, to pick up 120 level 1 Crusaders is pretty reasonable.   That's how many we had in our army at least.  We also had a decent number of Fighters and a few Marshals, Bards, and Binders. 

And diplomancers are also bullshit.  You should be shot for bringing TO bullshit into a thread designed to help newbies that want to have fun.  Really, not everyone tries to destroy the world.  You should be shot for bringing TO bullshit into my thread.

Point being, you keep assuming all games are just like yours.  That's the only fundamental lack of understanding here.  You keep saying my logic only applies in TO games, but personally I think the logic that Fighters are bad at pretending to be something they're not and that a player can, in time, recruit a decent number of Crusaders by RAW is pretty darn standard to the rules of the game.  Your ideas, such as that PC classes are reserved for PCs and power only matters in combat, seem very specific to your one style of play, which seems to be all kick in the door style combat with out of combat ignoring the rules completely in favor of diceless roleplaying while a bunch of spells are nerfed.  That's fine for your games I'm sure, but please don't assume your house rules apply to everyone, or that everyone plays with your special demographics.  I know I'd hate to be stuck in a game where a skillmonkey (which tends to be the kind of character I like to play, though these days it's usually Beguilers) doesn't get to shine because his skills are all ignored anyway and the Fighter can bluff merrily along without issues.

Tell me what you don't understand and I'll explain in a simpler form.  I'm assuming pure fucking RAW for skills WBL and classes.  The only thing I've excluded is TO bullshit that makes the game no longer function.  If it makes the game not continue then I've ignored it.  If it can be added and the game continue to function I've added it.

And Kaelik:  The army was fighting other armies, not optimized PCs, but it was supported by a group of PCs.  In the end, the PCs took out the rival high level NPCs while the armies clashed.  And yes, it's hard to take out a whole army.  Archery becomes a serious threat when there's so much of it, especially when Dispel Magics are being launched to counter enemy defenses.  Yes, even level 1s are a threat when that many shots are going downrange.

1) Level 1 crusader with IGG and stone power times 100?  Fucking bullshit.  That's as optimal as you get for army warriors and you're using PC classes so it is in fact optimized PCs.
2) Wind Wall.

Really, learn the fucking rules before you come back to this thread.

I do like, however, that you call Shapechanging into a Solar bull, but turn around and claim your Wizard's move is to turn into an Astral Deva.  Hypocrite, just a bit?

JaronK

Presentation is the greatest aspect here.

Really, cause that's not at all the impression I got from reading over the terms of the board 3 days ago. In fact, I gathered that content is more important then presentation, and judging by what I've seen from Meg on the subject, that goes double for g-fu. Of course I'm not under any illusion that explicitly stating that under board policy will ever discourage the "Being nice and wrong is better then mean and right" crowd.

So is then impossible to the "Nice and Right" crowd? Because all it takes is being diplomatic.

See my above comments about being ignored.

I don't think I am better then you, I think I am more connected to this community. And with the critique, I believe highly in the presentation of one's ideas and thoughts. I disagreed with how you had presented yours through out this incident (the attack on JaronK's sig for example). So I'm sorry if I offended you at all but I'm not sorry for what I have said.

2) I didn't attack his sig. There is this thing beneath a line, that's his actual sig, Granted he doesn't put anything there, but that's still his actual sig. The thing I "attacked" was just his name typed at the end of every post like he's writing a goddam letter or something. If he were to put his name in his signature, I would ignore it just like everyone else's.

You nitpicked something that nobody has a problem with and then blew it up. Can you cite a reason why this bothers you rather then "it's stupid". It's a quirk, everyone has them...

I have a problem with it.  I've had a problem with it for a long time.  It's fucking stupid.  However, I know JaronK is too entrenched in his habits and doesn't care about his image enough to try and change them so I don't bother bitching about it.

I tell people they are wrong every day, it's generally accepted because of the way I present it. Pure, savage, brutal truth should always be a last option during a discussion.

I think you have your option meter upside down. It starts with pure savage brutal truth. You can tell people they are wrong all nicely every day, but at the end of the day, they'll still be wrong.

Funny thing about your option is that after the first time you use your pure, savage, brutal truth is it works. I'm not going to deny that it doesn't. But next time you desire to inform someone they are incorrect on something they will avoid you. You've shown a history of offensivly telling them they are wrong. They'll be defensive, they'll view you in a different light. And they will not see you as a better person for it (no matter how much you may be convinced you are) because you spoke to them harshly, without any compassion. You have not forged a connection, you have in fact damaged any there may have been.

See above how the internet is differerent.

I call bullshit.  I'm currently running a newbie games with fairly optimized characters (I urged the players to read some online handbooks, and all but the Swordsage took it to heart), and the Bard is easily the strongest contributor to the game, while the Druid is tying the Swordsage for least useful, mostly because Wildshape takes an action and the player wants to spellcast instead -largely a wasted effort because the Dread Necro has the spare actions to cast Black Tentacles and thus is better at BC.  The Paladin is technically weaker in combat but has been diplomancing the heck out of anything that talks.  The biggest contribution the Druid has made thus far is a Stoneshape to break through a Wall of Stone an enemy Sorcerer threw up, which is nifty but not amazing.  By contrast, the Dread Necro has been locking down enemies with BT and pounding them with his pet skeletons while the Bard is buffing well and sniping the odd enemy with Charm Monster (Excellent synergy between them).  Even the swordsage got his moment of glory when he used searing charge to mid-air a dragon, but the Druid is rolling blanks.

Do you still not understand the intended audience?  If they've read the handbooks they already know enough to not need a tier thread.

@Shoestring:  The first Druid I saw was exactly like that.  I don't think she used Wild Shape once, and most ran around using that spell that makes a fireball that you control run around the battlefield.  The Druid class is powerful, and one of the easiest to optimize, but some people just don't have a knack for it and thus play it quite poorly.  That's why I tend to assume (at least when I'm ranking classes by power) that players know their classes and what's available to them, whether or not they chose to optimize... if I included all players, including the ones that have no idea what's going on, then all classes are equal (and do very very little).  So yeah, I've definitely seen even the mighty Druid look weak in comparison to, of all things, a Fighter/Cleric (which was mine!).

Wait.  A character played by a hardcore optimizer that has a fetish for TO made a character played by a complete noob look bad?  Why am I not surprised?



JaronK, please tell me what you don't understand about target audience before you reply to anything else in this thread.  At this point I'm insulted that you still don't get it.  It's like you aren't even reading what I've written.

[Kaelik]

And Kaelik:  The army was fighting other armies, not optimized PCs, but it was supported by a group of PCs.  In the end, the PCs took out the rival high level NPCs while the armies clashed.  And yes, it's hard to take out a whole army.  Archery becomes a serious threat when there's so much of it, especially when Dispel Magics are being launched to counter enemy defenses.  Yes, even level 1s are a threat when that many shots are going downrange.

Would you care to test that baseless assertion? You seem to be under the false impression that you could actually dispel anything at all, or that you would even know where the enemy is to shoot.

I do like, however, that you call Shapechanging into a Solar bull, but turn around and claim your Wizard's move is to turn into an Astral Deva.  Hypocrite, just a bit?

1) You can shapechange into a Solar whenever you want, you just don't actually gain any real ability to cast Cleric spells, since you don't have the time to Pray for them, and that's assuming your DM is generous and stupid enough to believe that spellcasting is actually an Ex trait without it being labeled as such.

2) What on Earth gave you the idea that my Wizard would turn into an Astral Deva? That's actually a relatively bad strategy and I would never bother with it.

So is then impossible to the "Nice and Right" crowd? Because all it takes is being diplomatic.

Not impossible, but certainly less effective. The point however is that when given a choice between nice and wrong and mean and right, you choose the former. It would be great if everyone was perfect, but when you have to choose between two sides like that, it says a lot about your priorities.

You nitpicked something that nobody has a problem with and then blew it up. Can you cite a reason why this bothers you rather then "it's stupid". It's a quirk, everyone has them...

I did not blow up the issue about his signature. I made a comment about it and then the issue largely disappeared until you felt the need to reference it as an example of my meanyness.

As for reasons that it bothers me: 1) is in the way of reading, 2) adds to pages/decreases content to page ratio, 3) adds more work in quoting him.

Funny thing about your option is that after the first time you use your pure, savage, brutal truth is it works. I'm not going to deny that it doesn't. But next time you desire to inform someone they are incorrect on something they will avoid you. You've shown a history of offensivly telling them they are wrong. They'll be defensive, they'll view you in a different light. And they will not see you as a better person for it (no matter how much you may be convinced you are) because you spoke to them harshly, without any compassion. You have not forged a connection, you have in fact damaged any there may have been.

As someone who learned the value of brutal honesty from it's application, I can tell you that you are at best making drastic generalizations and at worst completely wrong. I don't see anyone ignoring me in this thread. (Well JaronK is ignoring all my actual arguments in favor of sniping, but that's to be expected when he has no real response to them.)

[SiggyDevil]

2) What on Earth gave you the idea that my Wizard would turn into an Astral Deva? That's actually a relatively bad strategy and I would never bother with it.

I would JUMP at the chance but don't get the opportunity often.
OK, ever.
Had a Pit Fiend once that made a L16 Druid player in AD&D bitchmoan for hours.
We had a showdown.
Killed my devil in 2 rounds. Harm + a SOD. Probably could have done it in 1 round.

These days, a Concordant Killer looks cooler as an epic pick.

Carry on.

[Kaelik]

I call bullshit.  I'm currently running a newbie games with fairly optimized characters (I urged the players to read some online handbooks, and all but the Swordsage took it to heart), and the Bard is easily the strongest contributor to the game, while the Druid is tying the Swordsage for least useful, mostly because Wildshape takes an action and the player wants to spellcast instead -largely a wasted effort because the Dread Necro has the spare actions to cast Black Tentacles and thus is better at BC.  The Paladin is technically weaker in combat but has been diplomancing the heck out of anything that talks.  The biggest contribution the Druid has made thus far is a Stoneshape to break through a Wall of Stone an enemy Sorcerer threw up, which is nifty but not amazing.  By contrast, the Dread Necro has been locking down enemies with BT and pounding them with his pet skeletons while the Bard is buffing well and sniping the odd enemy with Charm Monster (Excellent synergy between them).  Even the swordsage got his moment of glory when he used searing charge to mid-air a dragon, but the Druid is rolling blanks.

I may be wrong, but I think the assumption is either equally intelligent players or that the druid is designed by a retarded coke addict but played by an intelligent person.

Either way, the fact that someone is too stupid to be wildshaped when the fight starts has nothing to do with anything. I can take even the best optimized level 5 Wizard and make him a shitty character by using his first action to burn his spellbook. That doesn't mean Wizard's aren't still super freakin awesome.

For example: 16 Wis, 10 everything else Druid at level 8: Wildshapes into Fleshraker, Has Fleshraker AC, uses Venomfire and Animal Growth, single round charge, instantly defeats pair of Hill Giants (EL 9 challenge). And that's with the giants getting maybe one round to attack.

Any character with a comparable character using 20PB is going to be severely handicapped in some area usually essential to their class. But a Druid can go through life just fine.

[Kaelik]

2) What on Earth gave you the idea that my Wizard would turn into an Astral Deva? That's actually a relatively bad strategy and I would never bother with it.

I would JUMP at the chance but don't get the opportunity often.
OK, ever.
Had a Pit Fiend once that made a L16 Druid player in AD&D bitchmoan for hours.
We had a showdown.
Killed my devil in 2 rounds. Harm + a SOD. Probably could have done it in 1 round.

These days, a Concordant Killer looks cooler as an epic pick.

Carry on.

I confess, this confuses me greatly. What does Astral Deva have to do with Pit Fiend? Or any of this really? Did you mean to quote something else instead?

Also, just as a small side note, it is physically impossible for the level 11 Wizard to turn into a Astral Deva with anything except a Shapechange scroll since the HD cap would be his own 11 HD, preventing him from becoming a 12 HD Astral Deva.

[Zax]

This thread is sad...

[JaronK]

Uber: Why did you shoot down my statements of the available number of Crusaders in a town by saying Leadership is TO bullshit?  I was giving proof that by RAW there are tons of PC classed people out there.  They're not the majority of the population, but an army of about 250 of them (200 level 1s and an assortment of higher level guys) is totally reasonable, which I just proved... and you refused to listen, once again claiming that I'm spouting theoretical ops nonsense.  What's so theoretical about raising an army to defend a kingdom using the best available level 1 troops, and arming them with reasonable gear (about 35gp in gear per person)?

You completely failed to notice that your claim (PC classes are reserved for PCs) was entirely shot down using the DMG, and instead just took a pot shot about leadership... which I didn't even use in game, nor did I say I had (I simply used it to prove that, since it gave you PC classed people, leading a reasonable number of PC classed people was reasonable within the given rules).

Tell me, exactly which part of what I said was theoretical ops?  Getting available troops that the DMG says are around?  Using the most common race for 95% of the army?  The fact that I was playing a Spellthief?  Which is it?

And then you call me a "hardcore optimizer that has a fetish for TO" when I just said my character in a different game was a Fighter/Cleric.  He was, in fact, a Half Dragon Fighter 3/Cleric 3, and the Druid was a Human Druid 9.  I don't remember my feats, but I wasn't set up as a charger or anything... I think I had taken Weapon Focus.  No DMM, no Shock Trooper.  Yet you assume, with no evidence to back it up, that I was playing something hardcore and optimized.  And you assume that I always play hardcore optimized, despite the fact that the last character I mentioned playing was a Spellthief.  Heck, I'm constantly talking about how Wizards are overpowered.  My most recent characters were Dread Necromancer, Ninja, Ninja//Fighter (gestalt campaign), Beguiler, Spellthief.

For the last time: no, I don't play heavily optimized characters most of the time.  I recommend them for people who ask for powerful characters.  When people ask for the most powerful stuff I can make, I give them TO level stuff.  When I talk about what's broken in the game, I give TO examples, because that's what's broken.  When talking about balance, I assume classes are played by people who understand their class and know what rules are available but don't want to break the game, with a varying amount of optimization.  When I play in games, I shoot for around Tier 3 most of the time, unless the party's composition dictates otherwise, something I stated in my Tier thread, which you read.  Your accusations are baseless ad hominem attacks, and if you were as clever as you so often claim to be, you'd know that.

Look, you obviously have problems comprehending that not everyone plays by your rules (a lot of people have here stated that they actually use out of combat skills as written, for example, and roleplay along with the use of those skills, instead of using diceless RP that ignores skills or lack thereof).  But here's a thought: instead of giving ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with you, try listening.  I was trying to help out here, as well as get some information as to your reasoning.  So far, the reasoning I've gotten is "combat is all that matters, and I assume everyone plays like me, and anyone who says otherwise just deserves to get insulted."

Also, just a hint, level one soldiers will have 4 to 5+stat hitpoints (it's always averaged for anyone but PCs, see the Monster Manual).  Damage against them will be 1d8-1d12+1/5 stat against them, unless it's archery, in case it's more like 1d8 against.  That doesn't mean they drop with every hit.  That means that the average melee hit drops them, unless they're Crusaders in which case it often doesn't, but still a lot of hits fail to drop them because they roll low, especially when we're talking about standard troopers who will have either the standard array or the 10/11 array, in which case nearly half of the hits fail to drop them.  Not every hit kills, as you claimed.  Furthermore, they're still not dead, just dying, and with Crusaders on the field that won't last long.  

Tons of your arguements have been nothing but hyperbole.  Claiming PC classes are reserved for PCs?  Clearly false, as the pages I referenced prove without a doubt.  Claiming all hits are one hit TKOs against level 1 characters?  Also false.  It's barely over half, and that's a big thing when we're talking about massed fire.  Constantly exagerating your arguements doesn't make you right.

Kael:  Your arguements are trash, and I've slammed them left right and center.  Armies of Fiendish Centipedes?  You still haven't explained where you got them, or how that makes any sense.  Casting not Ex?  That ignores MMV as well as CustServe (the latter is forgivable), as well as the page in the PHB that defines what various abilities are (from that page, casting is not Su, because Spell Resistance applies, it's not Sp because component costs exist, and it's not natural because only purely physical traits are natural.  Since all abilities must be one of the four, it's Ex.  Basic logic).  Shapechange doesn't give you time to memorize spells?  It's 10 minutes per level, which means a 17th level sorcerer has at minimum nearly 3 hours of Cleric casting, plenty of time to memorize (from within a Rope Trick) and then rock out, plus a Greater Metamagic Rod of Extend makes that last long enough for many adventuring days (especially if he has a few caster level boosters at this point, and who doesn't?).  So seriously, what arguement of yours have I not taken down?

You're right though, the Astral Deva was yet another random monster that makes no sense that you just brought in.  I assumed when you said an Astral Deva was fighting the army that you were talking about someone you'd already mentioned turning into one, but no, evidently my army must go up against Fiendish Centipedes and Astral Devas for absolutely no reason whatsoever.  It was an army battle!  Why are you bringing out random monsters?  And by the way, the Astral Deva that you claim is equal to the whole army could easily get shot down by archers... 16 archers with Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Cooperative Archery (which was the standard units I was using) plus the Bardic and Marshal support can do a LOT of damage, and that's just one unit.

JaronK